Mitsubishi Colt 2007 vs Audi TT 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.5 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 109 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 250 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | 7.4 seconds | |
|
Audi TT is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Colt engine produces 51 HP less power than Audi TT, whereas torque is 105 NM less than Audi TT. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Colt reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.0 l/100km | 7.8 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Colt is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT, which means that by driving the Mitsubishi Colt over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Colt consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Audi TT. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 47 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 710 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 870 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 670 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi TT gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 310'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 20 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Smart ForFour, Mitsubishi Xpander | Used also on Audi A4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Colt might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Audi TT engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 4.18 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.45 m | 1.36 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Colt is smaller, but higher. Mitsubishi Colt is 31 cm shorter than the Audi TT, 15 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Colt is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 190 litres | 250 litres | |
|
Audi TT has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Colt has 60 litres less trunk space than the Audi TT. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Colt is 0.1 metres less than that of the Audi TT. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`615 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Audi TT has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Colt has serious deffects in 45 percent more cases than Audi TT, so Audi TT quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Colt has
|
Audi TT has
| |